logoalt Hacker News

snyphertoday at 12:32 AM4 repliesview on HN

You might need to consider lateral options. What if someone flew 1,000 drones at the windows on the bridge? How many BBs can hit that fancy radar before it is out of service?

Nothing/neither/cant when millions of dollars and hundreds of lives are on the line? 'Are you sure about that?' Defending against these types of threats is well worth considering.


Replies

throwawayffffastoday at 1:13 AM

It's the radars really for destroyers. The bridge is not actually where the ship is run during combat.

There is a room called the combat information center, that's where the ship is run from during combat, and that is behind armor, even in modern warships.

Additionally ships are separated into semi independent zones, that can take control of the ship, and continue fighting even if the rest of the ship is on fire.

The real liabilities are the radars, and the rest of the sensors in surface combat ships and the airplanes on deck in the case of aircraft carriers. Aircraft carriers in general are heavily armored compared to other modern warships and it takes a significant amount of firepower to even disable them much less sink them.

show 1 reply
jandrewrogerstoday at 4:16 AM

Your scenario imagines a naive and completely fictional concept of how modern naval systems actually work. That you can’t conceive of why what you are suggesting is effectively impossible means you truly don’t understand the domain.

The reason designed-for-purpose anti-ship missiles/drones are so expensive is they are literally designed to be somewhat effective at executing exactly the scenario you are laying out, while not being naive about the defenses that military ships actually have. Anybody that understands the capability space knows that your scenario wouldn’t survive contact with real defenses.

You are making an argument from fiction. Do you take the “hackers breaking cryptography” trope from Hollywood at face value?

kayodelycaontoday at 12:54 AM

Yup. There’s the concept of “mission kill”. It’s very difficult to sink a battleship with 5” guns. Use them to blast off all the range finders, radars, and secondary battery and that ship will be headed home after the battle.

The difference is strategic. A mission kill is a repairable loss. It is an order of magnitude easier to fix a battleship than to build a new one.

show 1 reply
XorNottoday at 4:36 AM

1000 drones of what size?

If they're small - like quadcopter size - then how did you get them in range of a ship more then 10 miles off shore?

If they're large, like back of a pickup sized (which is roughly a Shahed[1] - link for scale) then how did you transport and move them without being noticed and interdicted?

For comparison one of Russia's largest drone attacks on Ukraine, and thus in the world, happened recently and included about 1000 Shaheds over a distributed area.

You're talking about flying a 1000 of something into exactly one target which has CIWS designed to track and kill supersonic missiles at close range (and is likely in a flotilla with data linked fire control).

You might get lucky I guess but I absolutely wouldn't bet on it.

[1] https://united24media.com/war-in-ukraine/russias-new-jet-pow...